9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng trial for alleged commission of aforesaid offences. The alleged incident took place on 28th March, 1995. The trial court closed the evidence in the light of the decision of this Court in Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar (1998 (7) SCC 507). The High Court as noted above, observed that the trial cannot proceed indefinitely and the trial had not come to an end for a period of six years, and, therefore, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in closing the evidence and directing acquittal. The correctness of the decisions in two Raj Deo Sharma's cases i.e. Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar (1998 (7) SCC 507) and (1999 (7) SCC 604) and that of Common Cause a Registered Society vs. Union of India and Ors. (1996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade. (4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause case (I), Raj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time prescribed in those decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Cause (II) and Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) cannot be sustained as these decisions were rendered by two or three Hon'ble judges and run counter to the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case (supra). It was held as follows. The Constitution makers were aware of the Sixth Amendment provisions in the Constitution of the USA providing in express terms the right of an 'accused' to be tried speedily. Yet this was not incorporated in the Indian Constitution. So long as A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 SCR 88) held the field in India, only such speedy trial was available as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure made possible. No proceeding could ever be quashed on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, limited though they are on the criminal side, do not apply to : (a) serious offences punishable with more than 3 years imprisonment; (b) all economic offences. Corruption by high public servants is not protected for both these reasons. Right to speedy trial is not a right not to be tried. Secondly it only creates an obligation on the prosecutor to be ready to proceed to trial within a reasonable time; That is to say without any delay attributable to his deviousness or culpable negligence. The actual length of time taken by a trial is wholly irrelevant. In each individual case the court has to perform a balancing act. It has to weigh a variety of factors, some telling in favour of the accused, some in favour of the prose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that he acquiesced in the delay and never asked for an expeditious disposal. In India the demand rule must be rigorously enforced. No one can be permitted to complain that speedy trial was denied when he never demanded it. The core of 'Speedy Trial' is protection against incarceration. An accused who has never been incarcerated can hardly complain. At any rate, he must show some other very strong prejudice. The right does not protect an accused from all prejudicial effects caused by delay. Its core concern is impairment of liberty. Possibility of prejudice is not enough. Actual prejudice has to be proved. The plea is inexorably and inextricably mixed up with the merits of the case. No finding of prejudice is possible with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
